Institute for Land Water and Society
Report No. 58
Irrigation day-to-day scheduling
decisions: A summary
May 2010
Kerri Whittenbury & Penny Davidson
Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, NSW
All rights reserved. The contents of this publication are copyright in all countries
subscribing to the Berne Convention. No parts of this book may be reproduced in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, in existence or to be invented,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without written permission of the authors, expect where permitted by law.
Acknowledgements
The success of this project was dependent upon the involvement, support and
contribution of numerous members of the CRCIF community, and irrigation community.
We would particularly like to acknowledge the time and information about their decision
making processes provided by the irrigators. We would also like to thank the CRCIF’s
Tools for Irrigation Profitability and Longevity project leader Evan Christen, and the
Irrigation Toolkits project leader, Bill Williamson for their guidance and critical thinking.
In addition we would like to thank the time and thoughts provided by the Griffith team,
and other CRCIF members who reviewed, commented and attended workshops and
interviews. In addition we would like to thank the support of the Institute for Land
Water and Society and its members who gave administration support or provided
valuable comments on the work.
Financial support for this research was provided by the CRC Irrigation Futures and the
Institute for Land Water and Society.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this report are solely the authors’, and do not necessarily
reflect the views of Charles Sturt University, CRC Irrigation Futures or people consulted
during the research project.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of tables.................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 5 Abstract........................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7 Background............................................................................................................ 7 Marketing................................................................................................................ 9 Decision making research .................................................................................... 9 Affect and intuition .............................................................................................. 11 Heuristics ............................................................................................................. 12 Decision-making support systems .................................................................... 13 2. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 15 Duration of project .............................................................................................. 15 Data collection methods ..................................................................................... 16 Interviewee respondents .................................................................................... 16 Irrigators ............................................................................................................... 16 Key informants .................................................................................................... 18 Methods of data collection ................................................................................. 19 Data analysis........................................................................................................ 20 Findings Forums ................................................................................................. 21 3. Findings and discussion ........................................................................................... 22 Decision makers........................................................................................................ 23 Influences on day-to-day decisions ...................................................................... 24 Objective influences ............................................................................................... 25 Structural influences ........................................................................................... 25 Weather ................................................................................................................ 26 Soil moisture levels ............................................................................................. 26 Plant/crop characteristics................................................................................... 27 3
Subjective influences ............................................................................................. 28 Rules of thumb .................................................................................................... 28 Knowledge and experience ................................................................................ 30 Influences on Adoption....................................................................................... 31 Combination of both objective and subjective elements .................................... 31 Socio-cultural influences .................................................................................... 31 Implications for the future of irrigation farming ............................................... 32 4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 33 Implications for ‘Tools’ researchers .................................................................. 38 5. Critical Reflections .................................................................................................... 40 6. Future research directions ........................................................................................ 42 7. References ............................................................................................................... 43 8. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 47 Appendix 1: Interview Guide ......................................................................................... 48 Appendix 2: Summary of rules of Thumb ..................................................................... 54 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Number of interviewees
16
Table 2
Grower-irrigators
17
Table 3
Grower-irrigators who grow wine-grapes
18
Table 4
Main crop type (per Grower-irrigators)
18
Table 5
Key informants
19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Mental model of decision making
10
Figure 2
The circular nature of the qualitative research process
21
Figure 3
Irrigator-grower decision making model
36
Figure 4
The Theory of planned behaviour (Armitage & Conner 2001)
37
5
ABSTRACT
This report contains the findings from a study which examined the decision making
processes associated with irrigation scheduling for growers in the Murrumbidgee
irrigation district. The project contributes to a broader development of tools and
technology designed to achieve efficiencies in irrigation water, sponsored by the CRC
for Irrigation Futures, Tools for Irrigation Profitability and Longevity. Water
management remains a critical issue in Australia ever more so for agricultural
producers who depend upon irrigation water for successful crops. The approach to
water management is multi-pronged ranging from greater use of market instruments,
policy, and technological improvements in irrigation systems. Whilst agricultural water
use has decreased dramatically (ABS 2009) there are still irrigators choosing to use
irrigation systems and schedules that could be made more efficient. In the face of the
challenge of developing more relevant technologies for irrigators and better supporting
their needs this project adopted an ethnographic case study approach interviewing
thirty irrigators and ten key informants in the field about the process of day to day
irrigation scheduling. Whilst the findings predominantly reinforce existing knowledge
about farmer decision making and adoption they particular reinforce the priority given to
experience, the need to validate any new set of data, and that farming goals tend to be
a balance between economic survival and lifestyle. In addition, it became obvious that
we were researching with a purpose of informing the goal of saving water and yet
saving water was not one of the decision factors of concern to the irrigators in the
study.
6
1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The agriculture industry remained a major consumer of water in the Australian
economy in 2007-08. The volume of water used for irrigation and application
rates declined further in 2007-08 due to the continuing unavailability of water
following the drought.
Australia's agricultural water use in 2007-08 decreased 18% to 6,989 gigalitres
on the back of a 27% drop in 2006-07.
In both years, the decrease was substantially driven by decreases in New
South Wales where water use decreased by 41% in 2006-07 and by 35% in
2007-08. Since 2005-06, New South Wales' agricultural water use has declined
2,939 gigalitres.
ABS (2009) 4618.0 - Water Use on Australian Farms, 2007-08
This project is part of the broader CRC for Irrigation Futures Tools for Irrigation
Profitability and Longevity project, which has a focus on developing tools and
technology designed to achieve efficiencies in irrigation water use. Our quest is to gain
greater insight into irrigators’ day to day decision making so that we will have a greater
understanding of irrigators’ needs for the ongoing research into irrigation
improvements. We have explored this question from a number of social science
perspectives and attempt to outline these in this background and use them in our
interpretation and discussion. Our results offer a particular ‘understanding’ of irrigators
decision making which highlights yet more gaps and opportunities but hopefully also
adds to our understanding of the irrigator experience and approach on a day to day
level.
The farming industry, which has a high proportion of family farmers (80 % - ABS 2008),
has relatively little capital to fund their own research and develop improved species,
tools and strategies (although research cooperatives attempt to address this need on
behalf of the farmers). Because the failure of the farmer to ‘get it right’ not only impacts
on their own viability but also on the community’s access to primary produce and
associated resources (ie ongoing soil health, healthy rivers etc) the government and
community is interested in understanding and influencing what the farmer does. There
is extensive literature around the process of finding ways to help farmers improve their
productivity and efficiency. The seminal work of Rogers & Shoemaker (1971) provides
a theoretical framework for innovation diffusion and social change based on
communication theory. There has also been a transition from a regulatory approach (or
authority innovation-decision), shifting to demonstration, then top down extension or
transfer of technology, through to more participative ‘bottom up’ approaches (Dunn
1997), including the participative research programs such as Rapid Rural Appraisal
(Dunn et al. 1996).
There are a number of ways of facilitating farmers / landholders to engage in ‘better’
practice. These range from the use of policy and legislation to the application of
governing / guiding set of regulations, and incentives; to behaviour change programs
through education and awareness programs; to self-directed or community based
change. In terms of number of instruments, level of awareness and quantity of
resources involved the policy and behaviour change programs dominate. Three broad
categories exist in the latter: transfer and uptake of new knowledge or technology
(adoption) (Douthwaite et al.’s 2001); the gathering of detailed information about user
7
groups and their needs and providing for these needs (marketing) (Vanclay, Mesiti &
Howden’s (1998) styles verges on this); and the joint definition of issues and
development of solutions in an iterative approach (participatory action research)
(Douthwaite et al. 2001; Dunn et al 1996).
One of the main approaches to encouraging water use efficiency among irrigators has
been to promote irrigator adoption of technological innovations designed to improve
water use efficiency, that is, to achieve water savings. It is well known and documented
that the uptake of such innovations is low (Montagu et al 2006; Everingham, Jakku,
Inman-Bamber, Thorburn, Webster, Attard and Antony 2006). Indeed, the traditional
transfer of technology and diffusion approach to encouraging adoption has been
criticised as being ‘top down’ and for failing to consider and value local farmer
knowledge (Kloppenburg 1991). In this approach farmers are not viewed as active,
contributing participants in knowledge development. Instead, Kloppenburg points out,
farmers are presumed to be passive recipients of new knowledge. Despite this criticism
and a concerted effort in some projects, traditional models of adoption such as transfer
of technology approaches remain popular among organisations research projects, in
order to meet funding organisations’ requirements of behavioural outcomes in terms of
adoption of technology (Dunn et al. 1996).
The alternative to the top down approach is logically the bottom up approach, or
participatory approach which has been advocated since the 1980s (Dunn et al. 1996).
Going under the name of ‘farmer-back-to-farmer, or ‘farmer-first’ or ‘farmer participatory
research these approaches locate the farmer as a co-researcher or problem solver
rather than recipient of the solution independently resolved by scientists and nonpractitioner ‘experts’. Past examples of a participatory approach include the use of
Rapid Rural Appraisal by Dunn, Humphries, Muirhead, Plunkett, Croker and Nickl
(Dunn et al. 1996), participatory approaches by Inman-Bamber, Webb and Verrall
(Inman-Barber et al. 2006) and Jakku and Thornburn (Jakuu & Thornburn 2008),
participatory rural appraisal applied by Allan and Curtis (Allan & Curtis 2004), and
adaptive management as tested by Allan (Allan 2004). As noted by Matthews et al.
(2008) participatory approaches address the key issues of credibility and maintenance
of control over decision making, as well as a more informed research community,
incorporation of required on-ground knowledge, empowerment of farmers, improved
relationships and partnerships between the research community and growers (Dunn et
al. 1996). In the words of Jakku et al. (2007) the participatory process creates a space
for improved communication and co-learning between industry stakeholders and
scientists.
At the same time that participatory approaches were developing strength Jan Douwe
van der Ploeg developed a theoretical construct of ‘farming styles’ or typologies in
order to better understand farmer’s decision making, socio-economic and behavioural
characteristics (Vanclay et al 2006). For example Mesiti and Vanclay (2006) identify 14
researcher defined typologies of grape growers. Initially it was thought that identifying
‘types’ of farmers would allow the development and delivery of a targeted behaviour
change campaign (or adoption / extension). However, Mesiti and Vanclay (2006)
question the efficacy of using the typologies as the ‘types’ aren’t consistent with the
farmer’s self perceptions (although farmers agree with the concept of ‘types’); they
argue that they are still useful as a researcher heuristic to better understand the
variability across landholders. They emphasise that the famer styles can assist
adoption and extension programs but also point out the benefit of this knowledge in the
active process of research (Vanclay et al 2006). That is, the typologies can be of use
in tool design or problem solving. Fairweather and Klonsky (2009) argue that the
identification of farming styles incorporating the farmer’s perspective, such as through
Q methodology, provides a set of farming styles that is useful for extension.
8
MARKETING
Early work in developing farming ‘styles’ or target groups emanates from marketing
research which provides an approach (arguably very successful) to understanding and
influencing people’s decision making behaviours. Understanding the habits, values
and attitudes and the links to decision making and behaviour of particular segments
allows us to target those groups most open to change. Marketing requires an
understanding of the influence of thoughts and feelings on behaviour (cognitivism), and
how behaviour influences thoughts and feelings (behaviourism) (East, Wright &
Vanhuele 2008 p 23). We know that there is a consistent correlation between attitude
and behaviour where the behaviour is a single specific behaviour rather than a set of
behaviours (eg putting up nest boxes vs looking after habitat) (East, Wright & Vanhuele
2008 p 125). Generally from a marketing perspective the decision to purchase a
product correlates to the expected costs and rewards; social marketers base their
approach on the ‘purchase of a behaviour’ (eg putting litter in the bin, installing drip
irrigation instead of using sprinklers). However decision making, and consequent
behaviour is not usually a simple ‘rational’ process and is explored more recently in
terms of ‘planned behaviour’, as per ‘the theory of planned behavior’ developed by
Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975 (East, Wright & Vanhuele 2008). According to the theory of
planned behaviour the three key variables are: attitude to behaviour, subjective norm
and perceived control. That is, engaging in a particular behaviour is significantly
influenced by ‘beliefs about the outcomes of behaviour (attitude), the referents who
think that a person should engage or not in the behaviour (subjective norm), and the
ability and opportunity to engage in the behaviour (perceived control).’ (East, Wright &
Vanhuele 2008: 142).
That is, the decision to engage in a particular behaviour be it to purchase a product /
technology or to try a new behaviour correlates to the weighing of the costs and
benefits, but those costs and benefits are quite complex and include a broad range of
factors. The marketing approach does not attempt to identify this list of factors; rather it
seeks to understand the person’s intention to engage in the behaviour, and what the
perceived limits of control might be. As such, a marketing approach such as social
marketing will explore barriers and drivers to specified ‘behaviours’.
DECISION MAKING RESEARCH
Other sociological work has explored the range of factors that influence people’s
decisions and behaviours. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971 p128) point out there are
numerous ‘decision’ involved prior to adoption including the decision to attend to
innovation messages, the decision to seek further information, and the decision to trial
an innovation. He notes that interpersonal communication is crucial in the adoption
process to provide the adopter the know-how of employing, interpreting and valuing the
new approach. The importance of the social and communication context continues to
be highlighted in recent work such as Burton’s (2004) ethnographic study of farmers in
the UK where he was able to uncover the strong influence of social identity and status
in farming practice. Whilst the farmers work within a productivist model and position
economic goals as important to their decision making, they do so using an approach
that demonstrates good farming practice to others; consequently farmers will make
some decisions which often do not result in the most economic outcome. This work
reinforces and provides a clear example that whilst it is possible to predict the decision
someone might make based upon a rational and logical process the outcome rarely
matches with what people actually do (East, Wright & Vanhuele 2008). The UK case
study showed very clearly that economic outcomes were not the only or main driver for
some of the farming decisions. In the UK farmers would put more effort into the fields
9
adjacent to the roads and public ways in order to demonstrate that they were ‘good
farmers’.
More specific decision research or decision theory explores the range of factors that
are considered in decision making and the way that people will assess these factors to
reach their decision and behaviour. As noted above, people do not act in highly
rational ways, rather people’s decision making is influenced by anchor points, the
social context, the complexity of the decision and so on. For example, we are strongly
influenced by reference points or ‘anchors’, a behaviour frequently used in real estate
auctions and other marketing strategies. An explanation of anchor points is best
demonstrated by Tversky and Kahneman’s study (1974) where they asked people to
guess the percentage of African nations which are members of the United Nations.
People who were first asked "Was it more or less than 45%?" guessed lower values
than those who had been asked if it was more or less than 65%. The behaviours or
ideas from previous generation farmers are therefore possible anchor points for
contemporary farmers.
There has also been more specific research on the decision making itself process in
the farming community. Farmar-Bowers & Lane (2009) for example aimed to
understand decision making in terms of how farmers think, how they sort the
information and make sense of it. Similar to previous decision making models their
model includes motivation, strategic opportunity and action (Figure 1).
Motivation + strategic opportunity = action
Personal
knowledge, skills,
energy, contacts
etc
External
Finance, transport,
insurance, govt
programs etc
Random components
eg market
fluctuations, weather
Figure 1: Mental model of decision making
Source: After Farmar-Bowers & Lane (2009)
Farmar-Bowers & Lane (2009) for example derived a decision making model which
suggests that farmers use three different decision-systems:
Family decision system – based on ethic of care
Farm business trading decision system – based on ethic of business
Land ownership decision system – based on goals and values related to who
owns the land
Each decision system uses the model of decision making given above, but they found
that of the different decision systems there was a hierarchy in which the decisions were
made. And so the decision to farm would be made in the family decision system but the
operational decisions and whether to buy land or not would be made in the farm
10
business trading decision system and land ownership decision system (Farmar-Bowers
& Lane 2009).
There is an increasing literature on decision making in the context of climate change
and risk management, and Milne, Stenekes & Russell (2008) explore the range of
factors that influence decision making around adapting to climate change. Their work
uses behavioural theory as a framework and they found that the factors influencing
adaption (so a particular kind of behaviour) were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Values and attitudes related to rural life
Knowledge and awareness
Business skills and professionalism
Networks and relationships (social capital)
Regulatory policy and context
Economic and financial factors
Milne et al (2008) highlight the high value of farming lifestyle in the decisions that the
farmers were making. Based on the theory of planned action people are first motivated
to act, develop an intention to act and then will act, all of which will be influenced by the
capacity to act. Capacity to act is determined by:
•
•
•
•
•
Condition of the natural assets
Social capital
Human capital
Financial capital
Physical capital (Milne et al. 2008: 11)
AFFECT AND INTUITION
Other literature explores in more detail the non-rational influences in decision making
such as affect, emotion or the use of heuristics. In general terms Loewenstein and
Lerner (2003) has found that people make decisions based on their anticipated feelings
not on the expected utility of that decision. That is, people tend not to look at the big
picture but at the consequences of the immediate action and how that will make them
feel, a gambling example is that people will anticipate the satisfaction of winning or
losing $100 and will make their decision based on that feeling but won’t calculate or
consider their feelings of this win/loss on their overall assets (eg they will now have
$99900 as total assets). Or taken to a farming example a decision to revegetate a
water course or section of a paddock will be made partly considering their anticipated
feelings once they have done that action, not just upon a rational input-output
calculation, or the overall impact of the strategy on local vegetation.
The influence of feelings is also called the affect heuristic – where people’s affect will
influence their decision making. Finucane et al. (2000: 1) showed that ‘people rely on
affect when judging the risk and benefit of specific hazards’, and that perceptions of
risk and benefit are linked. That is, objects and events are ‘tagged’ with positive and
negative feelings in people’s minds and these are consulted when a judgment or
evaluation is required. And changing either the perception of risk or benefit will impact
on the alternative: for example increasing the perception of risk will decrease the
perception of benefit. The affect heuristic explains why someone will buy a house
based on first perception, and why we’re influenced by the charming sales person.
11
Intuition is a contested concept (Easen & Wilcockson 1996) variously defined as
representing irrational decision making, gut feeling, tacit knowledge, and discussed as
a conscious, unconscious, pre-conscious and subconscious process. Whilst intuition is
considered an unprofessional form of judgement it is frequently reported as the basis
for a particular action or decision within professions such as nursing, policing,
emergency service people and high level managers. In this report we use Easen &
Wilcockson (1996) position that ‘intuition’ represents a non-conscious process of
making sense of a situation. It is based on a sound and relevant knowledge base which
allows the actor to recognise patterns in the situation or diagnose the current state
(Pomerol & Adam 2006). Associated with these patterns are past decision making,
experience and ‘know-how’ which forms the basis for a speedy and effortless ‘intuitive’
decision, triggered after the recognition state (Pomerol & Adam 2006).
HEURISTICS
One of the reasons attributed to inconsistent and non-optimal decisions is a reliance on
heuristic rules or intuitive judgements (Trailer & Morgan 2004). There is certainly no
lack of ‘heuristics1’ associated with farming and this report will outline those that are
used by the participants. However, Leith’s study shows a reluctance to use heuristic
rules. Five interesting points emerged from Leith’s (2006) study of Queensland
graziers. First, he found that graziers would tend not to base their decisions on formal
records or processes but on their experience and knowledge of the country; this study
reflects the psychological and marketing studies which point out that decisions are not
purely rational processes. He also found that great value was placed on having long
experience and knowledge of the seasons and country, and so listening to the ‘old
hands’ was a significant part of management practice. Second, graziers would pay
attention to available information such as long range weather forecasts but tend to
want to ‘test’ the accuracy of the forecasts rather than simply trust them and factor
them immediately into their decision making. Leith suggested this was a desire to ‘be
independently responsible’ rather than follow a simple logical formula where you enter,
for example, x (weather) + y (soil moisture) = z (do …). Third, Leith also found that
whilst there were a number of ‘natural indicators’ which might be used as heuristics
known to the graziers (eg strong monsoons in India) they tended not to trust these. And
fourth, they had a belief in the law of averages that that things will eventually even out,
after a few years of drought there will be rain or a flood. Mazur et al (2008) interpreted
this as a possible ‘Optimism Bias’ (from Bazeman 2006) which can lead people to
interpret the situation as not requiring a different course of action. Fifth, whilst Leith
developed a list of 50 factors that influenced management practice most graziers only
considered 2 or 3 of these factors. He concluded that whilst some graziers would apply
scientific training and calculation, experiential learning and gut instinct still played a
significant part in management practices.
There is, however, little information that specifically addresses irrigators’ decisionmaking from the perspective of irrigators themselves (Whittenbury and Davidson 2009).
The approach taken in this project recognises that knowledge is socially constructed
1
“A heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows people to solve problems and make judgments
quickly and efficiently. The rule-of-thumb strategies shorten decision-making time and allow
people to function without constantly stopping to think about the next course of action. While
heuristics are helpful in many situations, they can also lead to biases.” (van Wagner nd)
12
and made sense of using our existing mental maps and world view (Douthwaite et al.
2001). Hence the knowledge and approach of the irrigator is likely to differ to that of
the scientist who has specialist knowledge about some aspects of the irrigator’s world.
The primary aim of this project was to explore irrigators’ decision-making, with a
particular focus on short-term day-to-day irrigation scheduling decisions, from the
perspectives of the irrigators themselves. Findings from the project will contribute to the
development and modification of technological innovations to better reflect irrigator
needs and to the implementation of support mechanisms designed to yield
improvements in water-use efficiency.
A secondary aim of the project was to provide a mechanism and approach that will
foster social science input into tool development, not only through the contribution of
this project’s findings but also through a strategy of inputting social data in traditionally
technical research projects; yielding a more interdisciplinary approach. It is important
for researchers and tool developers to understand the broad social context in which
irrigators operate and the varied factors that influence their irrigation-related decisions.
This project differs from previous research into irrigators’ decision-making, which has
focused on adoption decisions, in that its focus is on understanding irrigators’ decisionmaking at a day-to-day level.
DECISION-MAKING SUPPORT SYSTEMS
The development of decision-making support systems (DSS) began in the context of
organisational decision making but applications have since been developed in defense,
engineering, medicine, forestry management and agriculture. Recent agriculture DSS
include by way of example: SWAGMAN, MaizeMan, FARMSCAPE, Wheatman,
GrassGro, and WaterSense.
The purpose of using a DSS is to improve the process and outcome of decision
making. The decision making process can be enhanced through support of real-time
decision making, greater understanding of the problem, facilitation of generalising, and
facilitates faster decision making, more efficient decision making and more systematic
approach. The decision making outcome should be greater user satisfaction, better
performance and ability to predict outcomes (Phillips-Wren et al. 2006). A key thinker
with respect to artificial intelligence and understanding decision making was Herbert
Simon (Pomerol and Adam 2006) who simplified the decision making process into
three stages:
1. Identifying all the possible alternatives;
2. Determining all the possible consequences of these alternatives;
3. Evaluating all the possible consequences.
Pomerol and Adam 2006, p. 27
Pomerol and Adam (2006) add that the common ‘weaknesses’ of decision making are
not exploring the alternatives fully (alternatives not investigated are much more likely
not to go ahead) and the underlying assumptions are not understood.
In agriculture DSS are designed to make the process of awareness and consideration
of a large number of complex factors (soil type, humidity, soil moisture, plant type and
needs etc) more easily and accurately incorporated into the decision making system; to
more fully explore all the alternatives and avoid erroneous assumptions.
Whilst a large number of agricultural DSS have been developed they are not being
used as fully by farmers as the designers / developers would have liked. Matthews et
al. (2008) has reviewed and explored the reasons for the limited use of DSS
undertaking a market survey of potential DSS users. They found that while only 5% of
13
respondents used DSS 44% used spreadsheets, and 34% used Geographical
Information Systems supporting McCown (2002) that software which supports but does
not cede control of the decision making process is preferred. They also found that
DSS tools are not immediately credible (also reinforcing McCown’s findings) as there
was a high degree of skepticism that the tool could deliver on its promises and desire
to ‘see relevant success stories’ before it would be tried. They conclude that land
management decisions now need to consider multiple goals such as environmental
protection, sustainable rural development and no longer just production efficiency; as
such a process is required where the trade-offs between the multiple objectives can be
explored. Matthews et al. (2008) advocate what they call a deliberative inclusive
process (DIP) and conclude that the socio-political environment around DSS which
determines the overall availability of resources is likely to be more influential than the
technical or theoretical aspects of the DSS tool.
Jakku and Thorburn (2007) add to the DSS evaluation discussion with the development
of their theoretical model and emphasis on participatory processes, concluding that
‘successful DSS development should be defined in terms of practice change, rather
than solely being based on the ongoing use of a DSS.’ They emphasise that the
participatory process was key in order to achieve, as one respondent noted: ‘at the end
of the day something (that) was useful to the grower at his level rather than the
scientist … level’.
14
2. METHODOLOGY
DURATION OF PROJECT
This was a two year project, which commenced early in 2007 and concluded in 2009.
Research design
This exploratory research utilised a qualitative social research methodology,
specifically a case study approach. A qualitative approach is well suited to exploratory
research as researchers begin with minimal expectations, or assumptions (Alston and
Bowles 2003). This form of research reflects an interpretive philosophical paradigm
(Neuman 2003 p76), which differs from the positivist philosophical paradigm that
underpins traditional, scientific research in that it assumes that our knowledge of reality
is a social construction and that understanding involves getting inside the world of
those generating that knowledge (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991). Qualitative research is
inductive in that findings emerge during the process of undertaking the research. There
are no initial hypotheses to be tested as in more deductive-style research projects2.
Researchers may begin with ‘sensitising concepts’ reflective of particular themes that
provide a starting point for exploration.
A qualitative and ethnographic approach provides the opportunity to explore the broad
context while enabling researchers to delve more deeply into factors discussed by
irrigators as impacting on their irrigation decision-making. Ethnography, is a
methodology associated with anthropology, which primarily aims to describe the ‘way
of life’ or culture of a society or community and might use a number of social science
methods (Patton 2002). This approach allows for individual, or personal,
characteristics of the irrigator to be considered. It also enables exploration of social,
cultural and structural factors that influence irrigators’ in their decision making.
Examples of social and cultural factors include farming or community norms, social
networks and family characteristics. Structural, or macro, influences include broader
factors that tend to be beyond the influence of individual irrigators, such as financial
and regulatory systems, marketing and distribution relationships and costs of inputs
such as electricity for pumping and fuel for operating machinery.
Fieldwork, comprising interviews and participant observation, was the main datacollection method for the project. The fieldwork for the project was conducted mostly
among wine-grape growers in Griffith, NSW3, a grower population targeted by other
projects in the broader Tools for Irrigation Profitability and Longevity project.
2
In practice inductive and deductive approaches are often combined in a form of methodological
triangulation. The inductive/deductive dichotomy is somewhat artificial. However, more inductive
approaches are useful in exploratory research as researchers seek to identify key themes.
3
Four rice growers were interviewed during the project. Some of the grape growers interviewed grow other
crops, most commonly citrus, in addition to grapes.
15
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The research interviews were in-depth and semi-structured and were supplemented by
participant observation. Participant observation and semi-structured interviews are well
suited to exploratory research as they do not set limits on the topics being studied
(Berg 2004). Participant observation enables researchers to observe respondents in
their day to day activities and interactions. Semi-structured interviews allow for some
uniformity in the topics discussed while allowing for individual variation to be explored.
They enable researchers to follow leads and probe respondents in greater depth to
explore emerging themes and concepts. Such themes and concepts are then further
refined as data collection continues (Alston and Bowles 2003). The interview questions
are based on information from the literature, interviews with key informants (see
below), and pilot interviews with irrigators.
INTERVIEWEE RESPONDENTS
As the project is part of the broader Tools for Irrigation Profitability and Longevity
(TIPL) project and was incepted, in part, to provide decision-making input to the larger
project, our research population was comprised of enterprises that would be potential
consumers of TIPL developments. In particular, horticultural producers, predominantly
wine grape growers, were targeted for this research.
Interview respondents were comprised of key informants and grower-irrigators. Some
respondents were representative of both categories. The responses of such
interviewees were analysed from the perspectives of both key informants and irrigators.
Table 1: Number of interviewees: N=36
Primary
respondents
Secondary
respondents
Total
Male
25
3
28
Female
8
-
8
Total
33
3
36
IRRIGATORS
Irrigator respondents were recruited from the Griffith area in New South Wales. Initially
key informants nominated potential irrigator respondents. Further respondents were
then recruited using a combination of ‘snowball’ and targeted theoretical sampling. For
targeted theoretical sampling respondents were sought who fit specific (theoretical)
criteria. Snowball and targeted sampling are particularly useful when seeking to locate
respondents in rural communities as the researcher can draw on a familiar source to
the potential respondent, or ‘name-drop’, which can make them feel more comfortable
about participating in an interview. Some respondents were directly recruited by the
researcher at irrigator meetings.
16
A broad spectrum of wine-grape grower-irrigators was targeted aiming for a sample
that reflected the varied characteristics of wine-grape growers in the locality. Our
sample included:
•
Irrigators with different irrigation systems such as flood, furrow and drip
•
Irrigators at different lifecycle stages
•
Different ownership and management structures such as family and corporate
•
Different irrigator ‘styles’ such ‘innovative’ and ‘traditional’ (according to key
informants and other irrigators)
•
Irrigators who may not usually come into contact with extension officers and
other liaison workers.
Developers of irrigation scheduling tools are keen to reach this latter group of
‘uninvolved’ irrigators. Such irrigators were identified simply by asking irrigator
respondents to nominate other grower-irrigators who fit this criterion.
Thirty irrigators were interviewed – twenty-two males and eight females. This included
three ‘secondary respondents’ – irrigators who participated in part of an interview with
another family member who was the primary respondent (Table 1). Twenty-seven
respondents were involved in family farming enterprises (Table 2). These varied from
husband and wife partnerships, parents and adult children, to family companies. Three
respondents were employed by ‘corporate’ vineyards – two were vineyard managers
and one was irrigation manager.
Table 2: Grower-irrigators: N=30 (4 irrigators are also key informants)
Family farming
enterprise
‘Corporate
vineyard’
Total
Male
19
3
22
Female
8
-
8
Total
27
3
30
The thirty irrigator respondents were drawn from 21 irrigation farming enterprises. In
nine instances more than one irrigator per enterprise/business was interviewed. In
most cases, an enterprise consisted of more than one property title.
Twenty-four respondents grow wine grapes, most of these grow wine-grapes only but
more than a third grow other crops as well, predominantly citrus and prunes (Table 3).
Three of these irrigators also had broad acre properties. Two respondents grow citrus
only – one of these was allowing his trees to die and selling his water on a temporary
(seasonal) basis. Four irrigator respondents were predominantly broad acre growers,
17
formerly rice, although one grower also grows ‘high value’ seed crops (see Tables 3
and 4 below).
Table 3: Grower-irrigators who grow wine-grapes: N=24
Type of crops
Number of irrigators
Wine-grapes only
14
Grapes and citrus 50/50
2
Predominantly grapes – with some other
horticulture: citrus and prunes
5
Predominantly grapes – with some
horticulture: prunes and also have broad
acre properties
3
Total
24
Table 4: Main crop type (per Grower-irrigators): N=30
Wine grape
24
Citrus only
2
Broad acre
4
Total
30
Most of the interviewees have high security water entitlement, which has resulted in
these growers having received almost full water allocation during 2007-2008. A small
number of respondents were general security growers, who would usually grow annual
crops (previously rice), and some high security growers also had general security water
for broad acre properties. Three of the respondents with predominantly broad acre
enterprises had recently bought high security water on a permanent basis, one in the
form of water delivered via the channel system. The other two bought permanent water
rights in conjunction with investing in an on-farm bore.
KEY INFORMANTS
Key informants are people who have knowledge of the issues and situations in which
the researcher is interested (Sarantakos 2005). Key informants provided the initial point
of contact for the researchers commencing data collection in the field. Key informants
interviewed for the project included researchers working in related Tools projects and
other service providers such as extension officers, industry representatives and
irrigation providers. Key informants provided valuable insight into the topic and acted
as facilitators (Berg 2004) in linking us with irrigators to interview. Information from key
18
informants provided initial structure to the emerging issues and assisted in developing
interview questions for the irrigator respondents. Key informants also facilitated
participant observation by inviting the researchers to participate in meetings and other
group functions conducted with irrigators. One of the researchers attended a ‘Farmwise’ course conducted by government extension/irrigation officers. Attendance at this
course enabled the researcher to recruit several irrigator respondents in addition to
being invited to attend another group meeting of irrigators.
A total of ten key informants, eight males and two females, were interviewed. Five were
researchers working on TIPL and related projects and the remaining five were service
providers such as extension officers, industry representatives and irrigation providers.
Four of the key informants were also involved (personally and in their families) in
irrigation enterprises (see Table 5 below).
Table 5: Key Informants: N=10 (4 key informants are also irrigators/members of
irrigator families)
Researchers
Service
providers
Total
Male
5
3
8
Female
-
2
2
Total
5
5
10
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
Participant observation occurred on farms, in respondents’ homes and at grower and/or
irrigator group meetings. In some instances, farming and irrigation activities were
observed and one of the researchers spent a day accompanying a grower respondent
harvesting grapes. The researcher also accompanied the truck driver delivering grapes
to the winery and was guided through the winery by the winemaker in order to observe
the processing of the grapes into wine4.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted in homes, on farms, in offices, in cafes,
in wineries and in vineyard paddocks. In most instances the interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. A small number of grower-irrigators chose not to have their
interviews audio-recorded. In these instances the interviewer took extensive interview
notes, which were written-up in detail.
Most respondents participated in a single interview; the interviews were usually
between one and two hours in duration. In one instance, a second interview was
undertaken to seek further information required from a particular (key informant)
respondent.
Topics explored in irrigator interviews included:
4
The researcher subsequently visited the winery to observe further development of the wine.
19
•
•
•
Information about farm enterprise including:
o Type of farm, size, land use etc
o Management/ownership eg family, corporate
o Who makes investment decisions
o Irrigation systems current, past, planned
o Water allocation, entitlements etc
Irrigation related decision-making
o What sorts of irrigation-related decisions need to be made
o Who makes irrigation decisions
o Perceived impacts/influences on irrigation decision-making
o Where do irrigation requirements ‘fit’ relative to other responsibilities and
activities
o Use of irrigation scheduling products
o Views about irrigation scheduling systems
o Likelihood of utilising such systems
o What would interviewee want in such systems
Demographic information
o Age
o Gender
o Family/household composition
o Farming future, succession considerations
The interview guide for grower-irrigator interviews is appended (see Appendix i). 5
In addition to participant observation and semi-structured interviews as outlined above,
a ‘mini’ case-study was undertaken. One respondent (and enterprise) was followed
over time using a combination of follow-up interviews, observation, discussion and
email correspondence. This allowed for data to be collected over time and enabled a
more in-depth exploration of the farm enterprise and the influences affecting the
respondent. It was this mini-case study that provided the opportunity for one of the
researchers to participate in harvesting and to visit the winery.
The case study did not yield qualitatively different information from the main irrigator
interviews but was useful in that it provided a helpful resource in terms of seeking
clarification and fleshing out concepts and terms that arose during the research
process.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis occurred as the project progressed. Data analysis was not a separate
phase of the project but was ongoing and became part of the research process in
which themes and concepts were identified, further explored in subsequent interviews
then further refined and analysed (see Figure 2).
5
The interview guide for key informants was very similar to the grower-irrigator interview guide.
Key informants were asked for their views and perceptions about irrigators and irrigators’
decision-making.
20
Data analysis,
development of themes
leading to further data
collection
Further (more refined)
data collection
Data collection
Data analysis,
Identification of
emerging themes
Figure 2: The circular nature of the qualitative research process
Interview recordings were transcribed. Transcriptions, field notes 6 and detailed notes of
unrecorded interviews were coded according to emergent themes. NVivo 7 (©QSR
International 2007) qualitative data analysis software was used to assist with coding
and data management. Data were grouped into themes, which were refined and
developed as the project continued. Themes were further classified into groupings
reflective of the data. The main themes are presented as findings (see below).
FINDINGS FORUMS
One of the key aims of this project is to inform researchers working in technical (tool)
development and to map out the implications of irrigators decision making to other
researchers. After our initial analysis we conducted three forums with CRC IF Tools
researchers and interested practitioners, presenting our initial findings in order to obtain
feedback on the implications of this work to their research projects. One forum was
conducted at Griffith with researchers who work with irrigators reflective of our
respondents. Another forum was held at Tatura with researchers working with a
different group of irrigators and the third forum was conducted at Toowoomba and
included researchers and practitioners working with diverse groups of irrigators.
Feedback from the participants in these forums assisted us in interpreting our findings.
6
Field notes are the researchers’ notes taken during observation and interviews.
21
3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Our findings both reinforce existing knowledge in the literature, for both researchers
and practitioners, as well as offer new insights into the topic of irrigators’ decisionmaking.
Irrigators discussed a range of topics and the interviews yielded a large amount of
data.7 Irrigators’ decisions can be loosely classified into longer term, medium and
shorter term decisions.
A long term decision occurs infrequently and has long-term implications. Such
decisions often incur significant investment. Examples of longer term decisions include:
•
•
•
•
•
farm expansion plans;
major investment such as buying more water entitlements (permanent water
trading);
what type of plants/crops to grow such as grape varieties;
layout and types of irrigation system for instance converting from flood to drip;
succession considerations such as – Will the farm continue in the family? Will it
be sold?
Medium term decisions are taken more frequently than longer term decisions. They
include:
•
•
•
yearly water plans/water budgets:
buying and selling (trading) water on a temporary basis;
contracts and arrangements for selling produce.
Shorter term decisions occur on a day-to-day or week-by-week basis. Examples
include:
•
•
irrigation scheduling decisions;
determining application rates.
The focus of this report is primarily on shorter term scheduling decisions, bearing in
mind that such decisions occur in a context that is influenced by medium and longer
term decisions.
7
Not all of the data collected has been used for this report. For instance many
interviewees discussed their views on water trading policy. Analysis of water trading
policy is beyond the scope of this project and report but the data could be used to
explore such topics.
22
DECISION MAKERS
Day-to-day decisions are made by the farmer-irrigator in owner operated farms or the
irrigation manager in corporate vineyards. If there are several properties in family
partnership – usually the family member who lives on that property makes the
scheduling decisions. This differs from medium and longer-term decisions that are
made jointly or unilaterally by the ‘head’ of the family farming enterprise (this may be in
exercising a right of veto).
And who makes the irrigation decisions that you make, those day to day and
the season to season, who makes those? (Interviewer)
That’s what I was saying before, the bigger ones, we all sit around and have a
talk, take in all ideas and then of course take in Dad’s experience over his 70
years. (Male grape grower)
Is your mother involved in those decisions? (Interviewer)
Probably not to a point where she will sit around the table and talk about it but
because she is always there in the background she remembers a lot of things
and say ‘remember when that happened and that year when this happened’.
Mum is like the computer memory in the background. She loves that side of it.
(Male grape grower)
So you will discuss those then formulate what you are going to do – effectively
some plan or goal? (Interviewer)
Yes. (Male grape grower)
Day-to-day decisions are made in a context that has been established by longer and
medium term decisions. For example, scheduling decisions are influenced by the type
of irrigation system on farm: in particular drip or flood. Decisions to invest in scheduling
technology may be made by people other than those who make the day-to-day
scheduling decisions. Investment decisions are likely to be jointly made in family farm
partnerships, although ‘Dad’ may have overriding authority, and by senior managers in
corporate farms. It is important to note that it may be a different person who is making
short term scheduling decisions from the person/s making decisions to invest in
scheduling or other decision support technology. Just over one third 8 of growerirrigators reported that there was some type of joint decision-making for investment
decisions although, as mentioned above, one of the parties to the joint decision may
have had more power in the decision-making arena.
Having said this, the process of decision-making is not often consciously observed by
those involved in the decision making, and so whilst the responses to the interviews
indicate that specific processes and factors can be identified with respect to a specific
irrigation decision (eg what is considered in determining the scheduling) they also
indicate that the shared decision making process is an event less reflected on:
8
Eleven of a sample of thirty.
23
We just talk it out between us. No one makes the decisions. Someone has an
idea it is put out there, listen to it then we go from there. No one makes one
decision (male grape grower )
This grower is describing a scene where ideas are gathered and developed with no
clear decision point, implying that the decision making process is most akin to a
consensus. This may well be the case, but on the other hand it is also possible that the
nuances of power and influence are being missed during the group decision making; or
are not events that are deemed reportable or relevant to the researcher. Indeed most
of us would be unaware of exactly how the decision making occurred in our own
groups or teams, apart from when we layout an explicit process such required for
formal meetings.
INFLUENCES ON DAY-TO-DAY DECISIONS
Not unsurprisingly irrigators drew on multiple sets of data in making their decisions.
Influences on day-to-day decision-making can be classified as being (mostly) objective,
(mostly) subjective or having both objective and subjective characteristics. The more
objective influences are those that are largely independent of the grower’s immediate
influence. These influences include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The type of irrigation system - (Irrigation systems are influenced by longer-term
decisions and are not changeable on a day-to-day basis);
Water availability;
Water price/cost;
Cost of electricity;
The weather, including rainfall;
Soil characteristics;
Plant growth stage;
Information from tools eg soil moisture monitoring;
Socio-cultural influences have both objective and subjective elements. They include:
•
•
•
•
•
Local and industry norms and expectations;
Irrigator cultural heritage;
Gender;
Neighbours;
Family and rural values.
More subjective influences are those factors that tend to vary with the individual
growers. They act as a filter through which grower-irrigators interpret information when
making decisions. Subjective influences include:
•
•
•
•
•
Rules of thumb;
Knowledge;
Experience;
Intuitive factors such as gut-feeling;
Affinity/relationship with plants/vines.
24
OBJECTIVE INFLUENCES
STRUCTURAL INFLUENCES
Structural factors (Giddens 1984; Ortner 1994) frame the context in which growers and
enterprises operate. Examples of structural factors include financial and regulatory
systems, product marketing and selling relationships and water markets. The political
context and changes in government priorities also influence growers as individuals and
the industry more broadly (Whittenbury and Davidson 2009). Influences that we have
classified as structural include:
•
•
•
•
9
Type of irrigation system – such as drip or furrow/flood
Availability /delivery of water
o neighbours may use available water on a small sub channel
o flow levels in the channel
o problems/breakdowns with pressurised pipe system – many growers
connected to the pressurised water supply report problems with water
quality
o water allocation – how much water the grower has available
Economic factors such as the price/cost of water
o The price of water influences decisions to buy and/or sell water
o Some growers with high security entitlements preferred to sell water than to
grow produce in times of high water prices. One grower-irrigator let his
citrus trees die because he earned a higher return selling water on a
temporary trade capacity than in using the water to irrigate his trees.
Off-peak electricity for running pumps
o Off-peak electricity costs around one third of the price of regular, or peak,
electricity. Off peak is during the night on weekdays (eg 10pm to 6am) and
all weekend from (approx 10pm Friday night to 6am Monday morning).
o Nearly all growers who run electric pumps – pumps required for drip
systems, (some run on diesel but vast majority are electric) – run pumps to
take advantage of off-peak electricity pricing. They water during evenings
and during the day on weekends. Not all growers water during the day on
weekends but many do.
o Watering in the evenings has the added rationale of less loss of water to
evaporation than in the day
o Several growers reported that they know they may be over watering by
watering all weekend, or that this timing is not ideal, but cost
considerations, in the form of cheaper electricity, strongly influence
scheduling.
o Electricity costs for pumping remain even with MI’s 9 pressurised system as
pumping costs are passed on to growers. At the time of data collection, MI
has not been able to negotiate a pumping tariff with Country Energy, the
electricity provider.
MI – Murrumbidgee Irrigation is the irrigation company that supplies water to irrigators.
25
•
I heard at the rice growers’ conference somebody told me a number of
farmers converted to drip their electricity bill is costing them more than the
value of the water saved. So you know I mean as an economic proposition.
(Male researcher/grape grower)
Wineries may demand growers comply with particular requirements as a
condition of contract and/or sale. Several respondents reported that they had
installed drip irrigation and/or soil moisture monitoring at wineries’ insistence 10 .
WEATHER
All respondents said that the weather influences their irrigation scheduling decisions.
They discussed different aspect of weather including rainfall, forecasts, observations
and evapotranspiration.
•
Rainfall – Many growers reduced/cancelled irrigation if it rained but a small
number of growers said that they irrigate as usual when it rains, particularly
as it has been so dry and rain is not necessarily penetrating the soil.
•
If winter has been dry, some growers stressed the need to irrigate before
vines start to shoot.
•
Irrigation is increased if hot weather is expected.
•
Data sources include observations, reports and forecasts – some farms
have installed weather stations that record weather, some of these feed
data back to grower’s computer. Others use internet weather sites, radio
and television.
•
Evapotranspiraton (ET) data – Growers varied in whether they used
evapotranspiration data. All growers had heard of the term and most had
some understanding of what it meant. The growers who used it said it was
a guide that they incorporated with other factors in deciding when to irrigate.
Some growers participated in a trial and received ET figures via a text
message every morning. These growers reported it was a convenient way
to get the ET figures and that even though the ET figures may be available
on the internet or television, they did not otherwise seek them out.
SOIL MOISTURE LEVELS
Irrigators reported using a variety of tools and systems for soil moisture monitoring.
These tools vary in sophistication from simple portable probes to complex systems that
transmit readings to the grower’s computer.
10
Some growers also discussed their views that wineries try to create an environment where
there is an oversupply of grapes each season, which reduces the price paid by the wineries.
This leaves some growers with some uncertainty over whether some or all of their grapes will
‘have a home’, that is, be bought by the wineries.
26
•
All growers report using a shovel to inspect soil moisture – even those growers
who have sophisticated integrated systems.
•
Most growers who use a soil moisture monitoring tool say they use it as only as
a guide to be considered with other factors such as weather and stage of plant
growth.
•
Growers say that soil moisture monitoring is not always reliable – ‘probes
sometimes lie’
•
One grower said that although he doesn’t have an integrated system for soil
moisture monitoring, a ‘mate’ does and the grower is able to use his mate’s
readings as a guide.
Do you think the scheduling system you use, from my understanding the
system where you are using your soil moisture sensing and deciding when you
need to fill those profiles, is that optimum for you or do you think you could
improve on it, or are you happy with it? (Interviewer)
I think I am happy with it. It’s what I want but don’t forget I don’t follow the C
probe to the letter, I also work with my understanding of a plant, how the plant
works. For arguments sake until pit hardening, we have been taught, that the
plant requires as much water and nutrients as is humanly possible because the
bigger that pit the more cells we can get dividing into that fruit, the bigger the
fruit we are going to get at the end, so basically up to pit hardening it’s very
critical we follow that. Finish that season we have about six weeks and we don’t
then take little notice of that, we consolidate the plant, stretch the plant to a
degree until we start getting the first warmer type days and then we have to
start applying a bit of water and then veraison comes then your probes come in
again and then it’s very important to watch your probes again. (Male grape
grower)
Some growers discussed soil type such as sandy or clay and a few discussed soil
water holding capacity. Growers on originally designated horticulture properties
probably have fairly consistent soil types. Differences in soil types may be more
apparent in areas not originally designated as horticulture 11 .
PLANT/CROP CHARACTERISTICS
All growers said that plant requirements influence scheduling and application decisions.
They also said that observable plant changes may indicate stress due to inadequate
watering.
Plant requirements may differ due to a number of factors such as:
•
Stage of plant growth;
11
When the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area was developed early in the 20th Century,
government surveyors determined land use according to soil types – horticultural crops could
only be grown on land designated as horticulture. Horticultural land was granted high security
water entitlements.
27
•
•
•
Grape variety – less water for reds than whites;
May deliberately stress (under water) reds to achieve particular quality;
Aim for specific baume (sugar) levels.
Specifically growers watch out for plant and/or vegetation changes such as leaves
beginning to wilt and vine tendrils becoming dry and brittle.
Some growers reported that observable changes to plants and nearby vegetation may
indicate that soil water is being depleted and there is a need to irrigate. Such changes
include:
•
•
Grass under vines beginning to wilt;
Crops near trees may start to dry out as trees take more moisture out of
ground.
SUBJECTIVE INFLUENCES
RULES OF THUMB
Irrigators interviewed for the project were asked if they use any rules of thumb in
deciding when to irrigate. Most respondents said that they did use rules of thumb. We
grouped the rules of thumb data reported by growers into themes and categories. We
have outlined findings below that depict responses that were reported by a number of
growers.
Weather
Rules of thumb relating to weather were of two types:
•
Hot weather
Growers reported that they increase irrigation, both output and frequency, if hot
weather was forecast/expected (many mentioned 40º in this context).
•
Frost prevention
A number of growers indicate that they irrigate in late September/early October for frost
prevention. Some irrigators said that this applied to both drip and flood irrigation
systems but the majority of growers said that irrigating for frost prevention was only
useful if it was flood irrigation.
Management of vines and trees relating to stress caused by under-watering
Many growers said it was imperative not to let plants become stressed due to underwatering. They said it is very hard even impossible to catch up if the soil dries out –
very hard to wet it again.
•
Vines, in particular reds, are more tolerant of stress than citrus. As soon as
citrus stresses it drops its fruit;
28
•
Growers indicated that over-watering was preferable to under-watering.
Their watering is determined by other factors than simply the immediate level of soil
moisture.
Plant requirements/plant indicators
Growers indicated that that there are important times in the plant stage of growth for
watering. They mentioned:
•
start of season – bud burst – (Sept/Oct);
•
End of flowering – berries set (balling) – (Nov);
•
Veraison – berries start to colour – (Christmas/New Year) – not so much lots of
water needed at veraison but critical to monitor water at this time;
•
After harvest – the vine is exhausted and depleted of nutrients – so need to
irrigate. The importance of irrigating after harvest was stressed by many
growers. They said harvest is a significant stress on the plants so a substantial
watering after harvest is necessary. A number of growers also said that it is
important to fertilise at this time.
Many growers said they followed a procedure for watering based on the stage of the
plant although not all growers adhered to the identified procedure in practice.
•
Sometimes because of a shortage of water – growers may have used their
entitlement or may have sold water earlier in the season;
•
One grower intentionally missed the end of season fertilising (that he said is
necessary). We speculate that this is because the property is on the market
and may sell before the next season.
Seasonal factors
Growers reported a variety of seasonal factors that influenced their irrigation decisions
in addition to those mentioned above relating to weather and plant requirements and
stages. These include:
•
A substantial irrigation at the beginning of the season as soon as water comes
on to fill the soil profile (late August/early September);
•
By the end of November all sub-soil moisture is depleted, canopies have grown
and berries are forming so need to step up irrigation;
•
A ‘big’ water at the end of the season to ‘put vines to sleep with a full belly’.
29
Emerging rule of thumb
Water every night
A small number of growers said that irrigating every night is better (than for instance
twice a week). Nightly irrigations may be of shorter duration but watering is more
frequent. The growers who had used this method reported favourable results,
particularly in more consistent baume levels.
Appendix ii of this report includes quotes from the data that illustrate the rules of thumb
summarised above.
KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE
Knowledge and experience are extremely important for growers in deciding when to
irrigate. Growers talked about ‘knowing their vines’. One even said ‘my vines are my
babies’. Growers also talked about intuitive knowledge and used terms such as ‘gutfeeling’ and ‘taken-for-granted’ when describing how they decided when to irrigate (see
Bourdieu 1990; Whittenbury 2003).
How do you know when to irrigate? (interviewer)
Experience. That’s a short, sharp, sweet answer, experience. When the
irrigation season comes on – beginning of the irrigation season which is the first
week in August give them a good drink, feed them up because all your feeder
roots are starting to work so give them a good drink, get them out of
hibernation, give them breakfast basically and then just wait and see. The vines
starts bud bursts which is a month later – that’s brunch – give them brunch and
then it’s getting a bit cold they are getting a little bit long we need to put a
jumper on them so give them a big drink so that the soil has moisture in it to
help frost protection. (Male grape grower)
Growers who use tools such as soil probes say that they use them as a guide, the soil
moisture readings being subordinated to experiential knowledge. Several
experienced 12 growers suggested scheduling tools may be more useful for
inexperienced growers, that is, new growers or growers new to the industry.
If it’s dry soil for a month and no rain forecast then we know we have to put a
certain amount of megs on in a two week period … it’s very simple like you can
get technical and have all these watering devices measuring this and that,
computerising and spending time on the computer you don’t need to unless you
have a 1,000 acres and you can’t literally get over the whole area, it’s very
simple. (Male grape grower)
So you think people can make it more technical than it is? (Interviewer)
Definitely I think it’s the case for a lot of things. I think it makes it look more
professional to use all the measuring on the computer and look at this bla bla
12
In this context, experienced growers have had ten or more years experience growing grapes
under irrigation.
30
bla but small acres under 300, I don’t think you need unless you are
inexperienced and only growing vines in the last 5 years.( Male grape grower)
Some growers reported having used tools in the past – to assist them with developing
experience – then, when learning has taken place, they discontinued using the tool.
When asked about irrigation-scheduling tools, one grower commented “I have tried
them all but they are in the cupboard”. He says he relies on his experience and
knowledge of his vines.
INFLUENCES ON ADOPTION
Decisions to adopt irrigation scheduling technology tend to fall into the category of
longer-term decisions as they are made infrequently due to the investment of time and
financial resources required. Our project focuses on shorter-term, or more day-to-day,
decisions and as such we are not reporting on longer-term decisions. Notwithstanding,
given our project’s association with the broader Tools project, we include this brief
section concerning influences on adoption.
Our findings regarding influences on adoption reinforce what is known in the field and
in the literature. Growers indicated that they want tools and technology to be simple to
use. They do not want to invest the time and mental resources in learning to use
technology that is complex to operate. Important considerations in tool adoption are:
•
Labour and time (saved or required by use of tool)
•
Cost (of the tool/technology and of adoption)
•
Ease of operation
For instance, with soil moisture monitoring growers prefer an integrated system rather
than having to manually check probes with a logger as this is time consuming.
However cost was an important disincentive for growers adopting the more
sophisticated integrated systems.
Another example is use of Evapotranspiration data. A number of growers indicated that
they use this data as it is sent to them via SMS. Even though they know how to obtain
this data, most said they probably would not bother to seek it out as this can be time
consuming. With the information being automatically sent to their mobile phones, they
can incorporate the data easily in their scheduling and application decisions.
COMBINATION OF BOTH OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS
SOCIO-CULTURAL INFLUENCES
Social and cultural factors affect irrigators and influence decisions. These include
localised norms and expectations and industry norms and expectations. Industry
‘culture’ such as wine grape growers’ culture may vary between locations. One would
expect different cultural features of Griffith wine grape growers from wine grape
growers in other localities such as the Hunter Valley. The overwhelming majority of
wine grape growers in Griffith are of Italian heritage, which was reflected in the
backgrounds of our respondents. This influenced respondents in their values and world
views, which, in turn, influenced their farming and irrigation decisions and practices.
This was especially evident for family farming enterprises. Many such enterprises had
31
a patriarchal management style often the oldest male, frequently the father of adult
sons who work with him, has overriding authority. In these types of enterprises, women
often played a subordinated and background role. Women of the older generation, who
were frequently not computer literate, took a more traditional role of wife to their grower
husbands, focusing on the personal care (home and food) of husband, children and
workers. Younger, educated women who were computer literate often undertook most
of the financial work and record keeping in family farming enterprises. These women
may have been wives of sons who farm with their fathers. One of our respondents was
a young woman working with her father and uncle on the family farm. This was quite
rare and we located her through the process of theoretical sampling. It is worth noting
that this young woman had no brothers. It was more common for sons-in-law to be
working on family farms than for the daughters they were married to. This is consistent
with other findings for family farms in Australia (Whittenbury 2003).
All respondents reported the importance of family values, which they felt were
enhanced by a farming and rural lifestyle. Respondents in family farming enterprises
also stressed the importance of self reliance and ‘being their own boss’. Such values
underpin motivations and goals. Values are held by individuals and, as such, may be
considered subjective however such culturally based values transcend individuals and
form part of the local socio-cultural context (Bourdieu 1990).
Neighbours also operate as a socio-cultural influence. Growers reported being
influenced by neighbours. If growers were not sure whether to commence irrigating
they would check if their neighbours had started irrigating. Similarly an irrigator’s
neighbour might have technology or equipment that provides information that can be
utilised by the irrigator.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF IRRIGATION FARMING
We asked respondents about their thoughts on the future their irrigation enterprises
and the future of irrigation farming in the locality13. Of the twenty-seven irrigator
respondents who were involved in family farming enterprises the overwhelming
majority said that they did not see a future in farming for the next generation of children
growing up in farmer-irrigator families. Nor did the three respondents from ‘corporate’
vineyards see a future for their children in farming. One respondent from a corporate
vineyard said he felt his children may have a future in the wine industry, although not
necessarily in the Griffith locality. As water availability in the Murray-Darling basin
substantially decreases, irrigation dependent industries and associated rural
communities may undergo significant decline. There has been suggestion, by a senior
Victorian Government bureaucrat, of a mass exodus of people from irrigation
dependent communities resulting in Australia’s own ‘climate change refugees’ (Ker
2009).
13
Responses to this question are not directly relevant to the focus of our project: day-to-day irrigation
scheduling decisions. They are however relevant to perceptions of the future of irrigation industries and
may influence decisions about long-term investment. We found evidence of different investment practices
occurring for a property that was on the market for sale and properties that were expected to remain in the
family for future generations.
32
4. DISCUSSION
This project was undertaken to explore irrigators-decision making around their day to
day scheduling as distinct from previous research into irrigators’ decision-making,
which has largely focused on the adoption of tools, technology and practices
(Whittenbury and Davidson 2009). While the adoption or take-up of innovative
technology and practices is important, it still leaves us unclear as to the decision
process at a day to day level. In support of previous work we found that:
1. Irrigators might use tools in a variety of ways and might use a tool for a limited
time;
2. socio-cultural factors or frameworks serve to mediate possible decision
alternatives and interpretation of consequences;
3. irrigators will verify data from a tool using already known approaches;
4. irrigators are reluctant to cede control of decision making;
5. associated with the former point irrigators will prioritorise experiential
knowledge; and
6. different goals exist across the researcher / producer community.
Previous research into irrigators’ decision-making has tended to focus on adoption
decisions (for example Carey and Zilberman 2002; Inman-Bamber, Webb and Verrall
2006; Everingham, Jakku, Inman-Bamber, Thorburn, Webster, Attard, and Antony
2006; Kaine et al 2005; Montagu et al 2006; Pannell et al 2006; Webb, Inman-Bamber
and Mock 2006) often with the aim of identifying ‘barriers’ to adoption (Stanley et al
2006). This approach is premised on a belief that farmers will adopt environmentally
beneficial practices and technology if identified barriers to adoption are addressed
(Montagu et al 2006; Pannell et al 2006; Stanley et al 2006). Barriers to adoption are
complex and multi-faceted and identified barriers have been consistently difficult to
overcome (Whittenbury and Davidson 2009).
The project and overall research program is driven by the goal to reduce water
consumption but interestingly saving water was not a decision factor for irrigation
scheduling mentioned by our respondents and other authors have noted that it is
possible that environmental objectives including more efficient use of available
irrigation water can be met without adoption and continued use of new technology
(Everingham et al 2006; Jakku and Thorburn 2008). Our findings support Jakku and
Thorburn (2008) suggesting that learning and practice change resulting in less water
used can occur without adoption and continued use of a specific tool. We found in
some instances, the tool is initially adopted and used then discontinued as the grower
incorporates the learnings acquired in their farming practices.
Reflecting on the decision making process itself irrigators’ socio-cultural factors or
framework serves to mediate possible decision alternatives and interpretation of
consequences. Our grower-irrigator respondents reported using multiple data sources
when making irrigation related decisions which are filtered and interpreted before
inputting into the decision model (Figure 3). This data can be classified as being
predominantly objective, predominantly subjective or as having both objective and
subjective aspects. Objective influences include structural factors that frame the
33
context in which decisions are made and may directly influence those decisions. In
sociological terms structural factors are those that arise from the social relationships,
organisations and institutions around us; or patterned social relationships (Germov &
Poole 2007). Included here then are the financial markets, costs and prices over which
grower-irrigators have little control and yet exercise significant influence on their
decisions. Irrigator respondents all reported the importance of economic factors in
influencing decision-making yet a number of respondents also noted that farming was a
lifestyle choice they made and that if the decision (to farm) was based on purely
financial criteria, they would be financially better off doing something other than
farming. That is, the socio-cultural (individual and community context) of valuing a
farming lifestyle becomes a lens through which to identify practice alternatives, and
assess those alternatives. As suggested by Pomerol and Adam (2006) those decision
alternatives which are not explored are unlikely to be taken up. Whilst many tools are
designed to assist in the exploration of practice alternatives growers are most likely
only using a tool within their existing social framework, that is, using the tool to explore
a set of alternatives consistent with their personal framework and not the full range of
possible alternatives.
Growers report that tools, including technology and information, are used as a guide
and that information provided by tools is considered along with other factors when
making irrigation scheduling decisions. The soil moisture or evapotranspiration data is
used as just one set of data to be considered with others such as cost of power,
weather, stage of plant and so on. The majority of irrigators needed to verify the
information they were receiving from a new and mechanical source such as the soil
moisture monitors, indeed they were displaying a lack of ‘trust’ toward new tools. For
some, the new information needed to be ‘calibrated’ with their own experience before
the farmer was confident that they understood the new information. For example, one
farmer adopted the soil moisture monitors and consequently reduced the volume of
water applied. In a particularly dry period he reduced the applied water again as he
would have done in previous times, unknowingly putting the plants in a stressed state.
In their previous approach the plants would have coped with the reduced water
application because of surplus water in the soil, which doesn’t accumulate in the more
accurate approach using soil moisture monitors. The farmer now understands what
occurred and has returned to use the irrigation tool. The need to verify might also be,
as Leith (2006) suggested, a desire to be independently responsible.
In support of Leith (2006), McCown (2002) and Matthews et al. (2008) we found that
irrigators did not want to cede control over their decision making. The experienced
grower has a sense of familiarity with the crop factors and pride in their ability to assess
the needs of the crop. What we propose here is that farming is possibly as much about
the intellectual challenge as it is about the lifestyle and satisfaction of ‘seeing things
grow’. Decision Support Systems and other tools possibly diminish the satisfaction of
intuitive or logical problem solving, changing the work place from ‘artisan workshop’ to
‘factory floor’. Several grower-irrigators suggested that scheduling tools may be more
useful to new growers or growers new to the crop or irrigation system eg converting
from flood to drip. Some respondents also suggested that scheduling tools may be
more useful to operators of larger enterprises who are unable to physically inspect their
entire property/properties. This indicates that as growers are not one homogenous
group, some tools may be more useful to some growers than others, but more
importantly decision making is possibly one of the satisfying components of the farming
workplace. Other socio-cultural considerations may also come to bear here. All
respondents reported the importance of family values, which they felt were enhanced
by a farming and rural lifestyle (see Gray and Lawrence 2001; Poiner 1990).
Respondents in family farming enterprises also stressed the importance of self reliance
and independence. They reported that farming and rural living provided a good basis
34
for raising a family and generally a decent ‘respectable’ lifestyle14. That is, farmers
operate in a culture of self reliance and independence suggesting that the reluctance to
relinquish decision making control is about personal satisfaction as well as social
norms.
Irrigators assess the alternatives available to them and make a decision that is partly
about risk management and in this process, even though objective information such as
that provided by tools is used by irrigators, their responses indicate that, ultimately,
their experiential knowledge is the overriding factor in determining when to irrigate. For
example, their memory of water stressing plants, or perhaps a rule of thumb passed on
from their father, ensures that they will always tend to over water rather than under
water. In the face of unknown likelihood of either over watering or under watering, the
growers are opting for the option that will have the lesser consequence. As such we
find that we reinforce Leith’s (2006) Queensland study of graziers who prioritorised
their experiential knowledge.
An interesting finding in this study is that, at the time of interviewing, none of the
irrigators mentioned the motive of reducing water consumption as an influencing factor
over their irrigation practices, be they long term or short term decisions. And yet,
greater efficiency and sustainability has been the researchers and government goal for
several years (COAG 1994). The key drivers (or motives) for the farmer are making a
living from the farm, doing so and supporting a reasonable life style, and using the farm
in a sustainable way for future generations or future sale. At the time of the study the
economic cost of the power to pump the water had a greater influence over scheduling
decisions than the cost of the water itself. The farmers perceived themselves as having
already made the change to water efficient systems and now water scheduling was
determined by their interpretation of the plants water requirements and their ability to
deliver this in a way that minimized financial or lifestyle costs. The continued drought
and higher profile of climate change might well have changed the general attitude to
water saving, but is more likely to result in decisions to change crops or reduce area
under production rather than invest in water saving technology. These different goals or
motives place growers and researchers in clearly different starting places which may
hinder a joint problem solving approach. In principle we advocate participatory process
in tool development but a truly joint process needs to be driven by a joint or common
goal.
The irrigator’s decision making processes can be mapped against the Theory of
Planned Behaviour which suggests that the likelihood of a particular decision outcome
is a result of: attitudes to behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived control leading to
the intention or direct behaviour (Armitage & Conner 2001) (Figure 4). Scheduling
decisions and behaviours are a response to the irrigator’s attitude toward that
behaviour such as choosing to irrigate on weekends, or week nights or installing
automatic systems because of a negative (understandable) attitude to manually
controlling the water at unsociable hours. They are also a response to the social
norms associated with that activity and so whilst being absent from weekend activities
because of irrigation commitments was once the ‘norm’ there is now an acceptable
alternative of using automatic scheduling. (Remember Burton’s (2004) study which
demonstrated the power of the social norms even in a clearly productivist
environment.) Scheduling in order to reduce water consumption therefore will be
associated with different attitudes to those linked to lifestyle. Irrigators will be unlikely
to consider a practice which they don’t see as within their sphere of control. Arguably
14
Such values have been well theorised in Rural Sociology and have given rise to the concept
of “the rural idyll” (see Gray and Lawrence 2001).
35
DSS and other tools are designed to make available a broader range of behaviours
(alternatives) for irrigator’s by providing access to controlling factors that were not
previously possible. For example, irrigators previously relied on digging the soil to
assess its soil moisture content and designing their irrigation schedule according to this
data. Now soil moisture probes provide data at a different level of the soil and facilitate
an alternative irrigation schedule (alternative behaviour). However, because irrigators
still don’t trust the data (need to verify) the irrigation tools are often not changing the
perceived behavioural control element of the irrigator.
Figure 3: Irrigator-grower decision making model
Socio-cultural factors, comprised of both objective and subjective aspects, also
influence irrigators’ decision-making with family values, cultural heritage and
perceptions of ‘good’ farming influencing a decision-maker’s value system that, in-turn,
influences decisions made. French social theorist Pierre Bourdieu’s (1990) notion of
36
the habitus provides a useful theoretical perspective in understanding the relationship
between objectivity and subjectivity, which, Bourdieu argues, have a dialectical15
relationship (Whittenbury 2003). The habitus refers to a set understandings and
predispositions that individuals internalise through their cultural history. The habitus is
shaped by the interaction of the individual with social and cultural structures (Baker and
Brown 2008). The habitus includes the way an individual ‘knows’ and understands the
world and comes to be taken-for-granted as ‘natural’ or ‘common-sense. People are
strongly influenced by the values and expectations of the habitus. The habitus provides
an important basis for an individual’s world view and how that individual interprets
external, or objective, phenomena (Whittenbury 2003). In the context of our study,
irrigator respondents reported similar beliefs and values regarding the nature of farming
and the importance of family, which they described as personal beliefs. Yet these
beliefs were articulated by almost all respondents, indicating the influence of sociocultural factors in shaping an individual’s belief and value system as internalised in the
habitus. Similarly, rules of thumb, while being subjective attributes of individuals are
influenced by the broader socio-cultural and structural context.
Figure 4: The Theory of planned behaviour
Source: (Armitage & Conner (2001)
15
In this context, a dialectical relationship means that each of the two phenomena influences
the other and each is influenced by the other: subjectivity is influenced by and influences
objectivity and vice-versa.
37
IMPLICATIONS FOR ‘TOOLS’ RESEARCHERS
Our findings indicate that in many cases there are different people making investment
(in technology) decisions from those who make scheduling decisions. Researchers and
others promoting the use of irrigation scheduling technology will need to consider this
in their promotion strategies.
The primary aim of this project was to explore irrigators’ decision-making and to share
our learnings with other researchers in related CRC Irrigation Futures projects. We
conducted three forums with CRC IF Tools researchers and interested practitioners in
which we outlined our findings and sought feedback from researchers on their
perceived implications of our findings. One forum was conducted at Griffith with
researchers who work with irrigators reflective of our respondents. Another forum was
held at Tatura with researchers working with a different group of irrigators. The third
forum was conducted at Toowoomba and included researchers and practitioners
working with diverse groups of irrigators.
The researchers and other participants in the findings forums were well aware of the
three key elements of grower-irrigators decisions to adopt a new tool or practice.
Nevertheless, the participating researchers considered it important to remind
themselves, and new tools researchers, of the importance of the three key points:
•
cost - value/affordability
•
labour/time savings
•
ease of use/availability
These three elements are well known regarding adoption and farmer behaviour
(Pannell et al 2006: Montagu et al 2006). Whilst they’re well known, and obviously
important to the irrigator they are still factors that are considered in light of an overall
complex situation. Of themselves they provide the researcher with relatively little
guidance, for example what constitutes an ‘easy to use’ tool? What constitutes
affordability? Grower-irrigators vary in their ability to understand and utilise technology
so what is simple for one grower may be incomprehensibly complex to another.
The findings forums highlighted differences between the irrigators’ approach and that of
the researchers; awareness of these differences can help the researcher understand
the irrigator’s perspective. They include:
•
Tools have been largely developed in the research setting, with a subsidiary
goal of later commercialisation. Researchers tend to ‘want to know everything’,
which has resulted in many tools being highly complex. Where this occurs the
tool may not meet the grower’s requirement for a simple to use tool.
•
Different aims, or goals, for researchers and growers.
In the context of the CRC IF the aim of researchers is to reduce water use: the
aim of growers is to make a profit. Researchers are focussed on water use
whereas grower-irrigators are focussed on a more complex picture where water
use is just one of a number of factors. Water savings may not lead to increased
profits (see Kaine et al 2005). One of the additional factors influencing growers
is electricity pricing for the operation of irrigation pumps. Many irrigator
respondents reported scheduling irrigation to specifically target off-peak priced
electricity. Many reported that their drip irrigation systems were designed with
off-peak electricity usage in mind. However, tools researchers noted that
targeting of off-peak priced electricity may lead to using more electricity and
higher electricity costs because using pumps specifically at off-peak times may
38
lead to higher usage. Large capacity needs to be built in to water delivery
systems if they are only being used at certain times, for instance at night,
thereby requiring higher flow rates and more energy to pump. If lower flow rates
are used, even if more frequent or constant, the overall energy use, and cost,
may be lower because less energy is required for a smaller capacity system
that does not have to meet high demand load. This is particularly pertinent to
collective pressurised water schemes. While the focus of CRC IF researchers is
water use efficiency, researchers remain aware of overall environmental issues
and expressed concern about water savings occurring at the expense of
increased energy consumption. The different goals between irrigators and
researchers need to be explicitly recognised and taken into consideration in the
research and tool development process.
Tool researchers suggest that tools have tended to be used for routine monitoring. In
this way a tool may be discarded by growers who think that the tool is no longer useful.
Researchers suggest it may be better to target tools toward ‘exception monitoring’ –
that is, to recast the benefit of the tool to decision making and to be constantly used in
order to alert growers when something is wrong. Tool researchers commented that this
would require a major shift in how tools are incepted.
It is the (tool) researcher’s role to focus on the question in hand and to interact with
growers on aspects of farming/irrigation relating only to their research – researchers do
not necessarily deal with growers in the broader gambit of their entire enterprise and
broader family and community lives. And yet our findings indicate that whilst there are
dominant and generalisable factors pertaining to grower decision-making, the social
context in which that decision is made is important to understanding the grower need,
and possible use of any tool. To facilitate greater awareness of the broader context of
decision making we have developed a social research methodology tool, ‘Farmerirrigator Familiarisation Questionnaire’ (Whittenbury and Davidson forthcoming) for
technical researchers and others to use in order to develop an understanding of
farmer-irrigators and the issues that impact on them.
39
5. CRITICAL REFLECTIONS
Tools used for ‘exception monitoring’
In response to our finding that growers may use a tool for an initial period then
discontinue its use researchers at the findings forums suggested that tools could be
used as ‘exception’ monitoring. In this way the tool would function similarly to a warning
light in a motor vehicle – it would alert the irrigator when something is wrong. This
differs from a more routine use of tools. There is some tension between the differing
rationales underpinning these two uses of tools. Researchers have found that desired
practice change has occurred as a consequence of tool usage, even when usage is
discontinued (Jakku et al 2007). The comments of some of the researchers at our
findings forums indicate that researchers are committed to their tools being in
continued use. It is important to remain cognisant of the underpinning rationale for tool
development, or the ‘big picture’, which is more effective use of irrigation water. There
may be a number of ways to achieve better water use effectiveness, with continued
use of a specific tool only one element of a multi-faceted approach. – what should the
researcher do with this knowledge?
The big picture
It is important to remember the overall goal is of improved water-use efficiency leading
to environmental benefits16. A narrow focus solely on water consumption in one sector
may have negative environmental consequences in other ways such as using drip
irrigation to save water resulting in increased electricity consumption and demand
because drip irrigation requires energy for pumping. In a perverse consequence this
could result in increased water consumption for the generation of electricity required to
power the drip irrigation pumps.
The focus of this project was on horticultural, specifically wine-grape, growers in the
Griffith, NSW area. These irrigators have high security water entitlements and have
mostly received their full entitlements17 during the time of this study. These growers
may not have been as motivated to save water as other growers elsewhere who faced
severe limitations to their water allocation. During the 2007-2008 irrigation season
many general security irrigators received no allocated water. We interviewed a small
number of general security irrigators and there was a tendency for them to be quite
innovative in their water use. As mentioned above, some were ‘converting’ general
security entitlements for high security entitlements and subsequently diversifying into
high value crop production. It is likely that some very different findings about irrigator
decision-making could emerge from a sample of such respondents.
Similarly, attendees at our findings forums were sceptical of our findings being
applicable in other irrigation contexts. Our qualitative research findings are not directly
16
Bearing in mind that there may be some tension/conflict between this goal and the goal of
grower-irrigators to make a profit.
17
Those who did not receive full entitlements still had enough water to irrigate their crops. If
high security growers had insufficient irrigation water, this was usually because they had sold
too much of their allocation.
40
generalisable to other contexts. However, the themes generated may be relevant and
the research methodology applicable. As our research was exploratory, our findings will
provide a useful starting point for researching irrigator decision-making in other
irrigation contexts. We envisage that the Farmer-irrigator Familiarisation Questionnaire
developed as an outcome of this project would be relevant, perhaps with some minor
modifications, to more diverse groupings of farmer-irrigators.
41
6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Possible future research directions include:
•
Exploration of innovative approaches to water-use and water-saving being
developed/utilised by growers themselves such as the approaches being
undertaken by a small number of broad acre/general security growers in our
sample.
•
Further refinement and testing of the Farmer-irrigator Familiarisation
Questionnaire. This could occur in other irrigation contexts. A similar tool could
be developed for farmers in general (not only irrigation farmers), which may
have broader application in policy settings.
•
Adaptation of the Farmer-irrigator Familiarisation Questionnaire to identify
‘market segments’ of grower-irrigators.
•
Further research investigating saving water at the cost of increased energy
consumption. There is some international research that supports this thesis
(see Nicol et al (Water Down Under Conference and the Canadian Water
Resources Journal) and Bjornlund et al (Agricultural Water Management and
the 2008 Sustainable Irrigation Conference).
•
Exploration of irrigators’ views about water trading.
42
7. REFERENCES
ABS (2008) 7104.0.55.001 - Agriculture in Focus: Farming Families, Australia, 2006 viewed 8
Sept 09,
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/7104.0.55.001Main%20Features3
2006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=7104.0.55.001&issue=2006&num=&view=
ABS (2009) 4618.0 - Water Use on Australian Farms, 2007-08 Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30
AM (CANBERRA TIME) 26/05/2009, viewed 8 Sept 09
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/4618.0Main%20Features2200708?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4618.0&issue=2007-08&num=&view=
Allan, C 2004, 'Improving the outcomes of adaptive management at the regional scale', PhD
thesis, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW.
Allan, C & Curtis, A 2004, 'Learning together: the Billabong PRA experience', Qualitative
research as interpretive practice conference proceedings, Centre for Research into Professional
Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE), Bathurst, pp. 212-219.
Alston, M. and Bowles (2003) Research for social workers: an introduction to methods, 2nd
Edition. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW
Armitage, C.J. & Conner, M. (2001) Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A metaanalytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 471-499.
Baker, S. and Brown, B. J. (2008). Habitus and Homeland: Educational Aspirations, Family Life
and Culture in Autobiographical Narratives of Educational Experience in Rural Wales.
Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 48, (1) 57-72.
Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 5th Edition. Pearson:
Boston.
Bourdieu P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive Sociology. Translated by
Matthew Lawson. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Burton, R. J. F. (2004). "Seeing through the 'good farmer's' eyes: Towards developing an
understanding of the socil symbolic value of 'productivist' behaviour." Sociologia Ruralis 44(2):
195-215.
Carey J. and Zilberman, D. (2002). A Model of Investment under Uncertainty: Modern Irrigation
Technology and Emerging Markets in Water. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1)
171-183
Council Of Australian Governments (1994) Water reform framework. Extracts from Council of
Australian Governments: Hobart, 25 February 1994, Communiqué. Environment Australia.
Douthwaite, B., de Haan, N. C., Manyong, V. & Keatinge, D. (2001) Blending "hard" and "soft"
science: the "follow-the-technology" approach to catalyzing and evaluating technology change.
Conservation Ecology Volume, 13 DOI:
Dunn, T., Humphreys, L., Muirhead, W., Plunkett, M., Croker, N., and Nickl, M. (1996) Changing
paradigms for farmer-researcher-extensionist relationships: Exploring methods and theories of
farmer participation in research. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension,
3(3), 167-181
43
East, R., Wright, M. & Vanhuele, M. (2008) Consumer Behaviour: Applications in marketing.
Sage, Los Angeles.
Everingham Y., Jakku, E., Inman-Bamber G., Thorburn P., Webster T., Attard S., Antony G
(2006). Understanding the Adoption of Knowledge Intensive Technologies in the Australian
Sugar Industry – A Pilot Study. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol., 28:76-85.
Fairweather J and Klonsky K (2009) Response to Vanclay et al. on Farming Styles: Q
Methodology for Identifying Styles and its Relevance to Extension. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 48,
(2) 189-198.
Farmar-Bowers, Q. & Lane, R. (2009). "Understanding farmers' strategic decision-making
processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy." Journal of Environmental
Management 90(2): 1135-1144.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000) The affect heuristic in
judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.
Germov, J & Poole, M (2007) Public sociology: An introduction to Australian society. Allen and
Unwin: Crows Nest.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of a theory of Structuration. University
of California Press: Berkeley.
Gray, I. & Lawrence, G. (2001). A future for Regional Australia: Escaping Global Misfortune.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Inman-Bamber, N.G., Webb, W.A. & Verrall, S.A. (2006). Participatory irrigation research and
scheduling in the Ord: R&D. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 28, 155-163
Jakku E., Thorburn P., Everingham Y. & Inman-Bamber G. (2007). Improving the participatory
development of decision support systems for the sugar industry. Proceedings Australian Society
Sugar Cane Technologists, 29, 41-49.
Jakku, E. & Thornburn, P.J. (2007) A sociological framing of the participatory development of
agricultural decision support systems. Paper presented to TASA & SAANZ Joint Conference, 47 December 2007, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jakku, E. & Thorburn, P.J. (2008). A sociological analysis of the participatory development of
agricultural decision support systems. In: Hatfield-Dodds, S. Van Kerkhoff, L. and Proctor, W.
(eds) Reflecting on integrated mission directed research: learning from experience in
environment and natural resource management, Elsevier IDEA series (Elsevier: The
Netherlands), accepted for publication.
Kaine G., Bewsell D., Boland A., & Linehan C. (2005). Using market research to understand the
adoption of irrigation management strategies in the stone and pome fruit industry. Australian
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 45, 1181-1187.
Ker Peter (2009) Exodus fears for Murray towns. The ( Melbourne) Age March 18, 2009.
Kloppenburg, J. (1991). Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local
knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56(4), 519-548.
Leith, P. (2006). Conversations about Climate: seasonal variability and graziers’ decisions in the
eastern rangelands. University of Tasmania, Hobart. Accessed on line 13 August 2009 url:
http://www.utas.edu.au/ruralcommunities/graziers_climate/images/Conversations_Leith_P_200
6.pdf.
44
Loewenstein, G. & J. S. Lerner (2003). The role of affect in decision making. Handbook of
affective sciences. 1st edn. R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer and H. H. Goldsmith. New York, NY,
US: Oxford University Press
Matthews, K.B, Schwarz, G. Buchan, K. & Rivington, M. & Miller, D. (2008) Wither agricultural
DSS? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 61(2): 149-159.
Mazur, N., Curtis, A., Thwaites, R. & Race, D. (2008). Rural landholders adapting to climate
change: social research perspectives, Landscape Logic Technical Report No. 5, Landscape
Logic, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
McCown, R.L. (2002) Changing systems for supporting farmers’ decisions: problems,
paradigms, and prospects. Agricultural Systems 74(1): 179-220.
Mesiti, L. & F. Vanclay (2006). "Specifying the farming styles in viticulture." Australian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture 46: 585-593.
Milne, M., Stenekes, N. & Russell, J. (2008). Climate risk and industry adaptation. Canberra,
Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australian Government.
Montagu, K., Thomas, B., Thomas, G., Christen, E., Hornbuckle, J., Baillie, C., Linehan, C.,
Smith, P., Gallo, F., North, S., Meyer, W., Stirzaker, R. & Cornish, P. (2006) Understanding
Irrigation Decisions From Enterprise Planning to the Paddock. Cooperative research centre for
Irrigation Futures. Irrigation Insights Number 6. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods; Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 5th
Edition. Pearson: Boston.
Orlikowski W, & Baroudi, J.J. (1991) 'Studying Information Technology in Organizations:
Research Approaches and Assumptions', Information Systems Research.
Ortner, S. (1994). Theory in anthropology since the Sixties. In Dirks, N., Eley, G. and Ortner, S.
(eds), Culture / Power / History: A Reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Princeton University
Press: New Jersey.
Pannell, D., Marshall, G., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. and Wilkinson, R. (2006).
Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11), 1407-1424.
Patton, Michael (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd edn. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Phillips-Wren, G., Mora, M., Forgionne, G.A., Garrido, L. & Gupta, J.N.D. (2006) A multicriteria
model for the evaluation of intelligent decision-making support systems (iDMSS) in J.N.D.
Gupta, G.A. Forgionne & M. Mora (eds) Intelligent decision-making support systems:
Foundations, Applications and Challenges. Springer, London. 3-24
Poiner, G. (1990). The Good Old Rule: Gender and Other Power Relationships in a Rural
Community. Sydney University Press: Sydney.
Pomerol, J. & Adam, F. (2006) On the legacy of Herbert Simon and his contribution to decision
–making support systems and artificial intelligence. in J.N.D. Gupta, G.A. Forgionne & M. Mora
(eds) Intelligent decision-making support systems: Foundations, Applications and Challenges.
Springer, London. 25-43.
QSR International Pty Ltd 2007 NVivo7
45
Rogers, E. M. and F. F. Shoemaker (1971). Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural
approach. New York, The Free Publisher.
Sarantakos S (2005) Social Research 3rd Edition, Macmillan, South Yarra Victoria.
Stanley, J., Clouston, B and Baker., R. (2006). Understanding Land Manager constraints to the
Adoption of Changed Practices or Technological Innovations: Literature Review. Working Paper
No. 1 from the Project "Impediments to the Uptake of Market Based Instruments", Charles Sturt
University, Bathurst.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185, 1124-1130.
Vanclay F, Mesiti L, & Howden P (1998) Styles of farming and farming subcultures: Appropriate
concepts for Australian rural sociology Rural Society 8, 85-107.
Vanclay F, Howden P, Mesiti L & Glyde S (2006). The social and intellectual construction of
farming styles. Sociologis Ruralis 46, (1) 61-82.
Van Wagner, Kendra (nd) Heuristic - What is a heuristic? Psychology. The New York Times
Company. Accessed on line 6 October 2009, url:
http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/heuristic.htm
Webb, W., Inman-Bamber, N. G., & Mock, P. (2006) Participatory Irrigation Research and
Scheduling in the Ord: Extension. Proc. Aust. Sugar Cane Technol., 28:164-172.
Whittenbury, K. (2003). Exploring the taken-for-granted: Cultural and structural influences on
men’s and women’s perceptions of family life in a rural community. PhD thesis. Charles Sturt
University. Wagga Wagga, NSW.
Whittenbury and Davidson (2009) Beyond adoption: The need for a broad understanding of factors that
influence irrigators’ decision-making. Rural Society Vol 19 (1) 4-16.
46
8. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Irrigators’ decision-making: an exploratory study Interview Guide
Appendix 2: Summary of Rules of Thumb reported by grower-irrigators including
quotations
47
APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE
IRRIGATORS’ DECISION-MAKING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Interview Guide
PREAMBLE
There are no right and wrong answers. I am interested in your own opinions, views and
perceptions. This research is endeavouring to understand your own views about
irrigators’ decision-making.
I am a sociologist, and, while I am familiar with dry-land farming, I had little knowledge
of irrigation farming before joining this project. I may ask for clarification of information
that seems specialised or technical to me – even though this information may seem
quite basic to you. I hope you will bear with me.
Do not feel that you have to rigidly answer my questions. The questions are a guide to
assist in uniformity of the type of information obtained and are not intended to restrict
your opinions or viewpoint. If you are uncomfortable with answering any particular
question just let me know and if you wish we can skip that question.
The information you provide will be treated confidentially and no identifying information
will be published or released to any other organisation.
You have been approached for an interview because of your experience and
involvement in an irrigation enterprise. You are the expert in your field – not me. Your
views and suggestions will help us to explore how irrigators make their irrigation
decisions.
48
QUESTIONS
Irrigation/farming enterprise
•
I want to ask you about your farm
•
Locality of farm
•
Type of farm – crops?
– livestock?
•
Size (hectares/acres)
•
Type of water security licence
o Usual (normal) allocation
o Proportion of allocation expected this year
o Received last year, year before,
•
How many people work on the farm?
•
Who does what?
•
What is the ownership management structure?
•
How did you come to be involved in the farm enterprise?
o What is your background?
•
What is your role in the farm?
•
Do you work off the farm?
o What about contract work?
o Contract harvesting?
•
Does someone else involved with the farm work off the farm?
o What about contract work?
o Contract harvesting?
•
Tell me what you actually do on/with the farm?
o Activities?
o Responsibilities?
•
What sorts of irrigation systems do you have?
o Current systems?
o Past systems?
49
o
Planned (future) systems?
•
If connected to pressurised water delivery system:
o What are your experiences and views about the system?
•
If drip/automated system, what influenced you to adopt the system?
o If time saving – what do you do with the time saved?
•
Do you use any tools or devices to help you decide when to irrigate?
•
Do you have any irrigation scheduling systems?
o Current?
o Past?
o Planned?
•
If so, what influenced you to adopt the system?
o If time saving – what do you do with the time saved?
•
How do you know when to irrigate?
•
How do you know how much (irrigation) water to apply?
•
When did/will you irrigate for the first time this season?
o How many subsequent irrigations do you envisage for this season?
o When will they occur?
o How much water will you apply?
•
Do you have an irrigation/water plan?
•
Do you use a water budget or other method of accounting for your water
use/consumption?
•
Have you been involved in water trading?
•
What are your views on water trading?
Irrigation related decision-making
•
I am going to ask you about irrigation-related decisions. I understand that
because of the drought, this year’s activities may be very different from your
usual, or normal, irrigation practices. When I ask about your usual practices, it
may help to answer based on what happened in more ‘normal’ irrigation times.
•
Firstly, what are your main goals as an irrigator/farmer?
o What is important to you about farming?
o Why are you farming?
50
•
What sorts of irrigation-related decisions need to be made
o In your farm/enterprise?
o In other farm/enterprises?
•
Are there important differences between types of decisions? Eg
o Longer term
o Medium term
o Short term
o Other?
•
Who makes irrigation decisions?
o Does this differ depending on the nature/type of decision?
•
How do you (or other decision-maker) make your irrigation decisions?
•
Do you have any ‘rules of thumb’ that you use for deciding when to irrigate?
o Eg there may be a particular spot, or plant, that you use – when that
spot looks dry it is time to irrigate
o Eg there may be some weather features
o Eg there may be a ‘benchmark’ unit (paddock/bay etc) that acts as a
‘trigger’ for an irrigation cycle
•
What is the procedure you use for ordering your irrigation water?
o How much notice is required when ordering?
o How do you order your water?
•
What are some of the influences on irrigation decision-making
o Other people/players?
o Type of enterprise?
o Water supplier issues?
o Biophysical?
o Economic?
o Other?
•
What were the main things you considered last year/year before in determining
when to irrigate?
•
Where do irrigation tasks/activities ‘fit’ relative to your other responsibilities and
activities?
o Priorities?
Irrigation scheduling
• Do you think your irrigation scheduling is optimal?
o Possible improvements?
•
How precise or accurate do you have to be regarding:
o irrigation timing?
51
o
application rates?
•
Are you familiar with irrigation scheduling systems or tools? Some such
systems may be called Decision Support Systems/tools. Examples include:
- Soil moisture monitoring equipment
- Enviroscan
- Plant based monitoring
- Remote sensing
o Possible benefits of irrigation scheduling systems/tools
o Possible limitations of irrigation scheduling systems/tools
•
What would be useful to you in such a system/tool?
•
What would it take for your enterprise to adopt an irrigation scheduling system?
o What about for other growers/farmers?
•
Do you use available information/data to help you make irrigation decisions?
•
If so, what? Eg
o Weather data/information
o ET (evapotranspiration information)
o Other?
•
Is this information:
o Easy to obtain?
o Easy to understand?
•
Does the cost of electricity for pumping affect irrigation scheduling?
o Cost of diesel/other fuels?
o Do you use off-peak/time-in-use electricity to lower the cost of electricity for
pumping?
•
What are your views about automatic (timer) pumps for irrigation?
o What would you want in such a device?
•
Do you use computer-based systems for your farm enterprise?
•
Would you use computer-based systems for irrigation scheduling?
•
Would you require training in computer-based systems?
•
Would you use a mobile phone based system for irrigation scheduling?
Drought
• How has the drought and water shortages impacted on the farm?
o On your irrigation practices/decisions?
o On the family?
52
o
o
On the community?
Other impacts of the drought?
Demographic information
•
Hand respondent age sheet and ask them to nominate a category
•
Gender
•
Qualifications/education
•
Family circumstances eg
o Partner
o Children – ages
o Partner’s occupation
•
Do you think any of your children will take up farming?
o Would you want them to?
Conclusion
• Anything else you wish to say
•
Anything else that might be relevant to the topic?
Thank participant for the interview
53
APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF RULES OF THUMB
Summary of Rules of Thumb reported by grower-irrigators
including quotations
Below are the main rules of thumb reported by grower-irrigators. The underlined
headings are the researchers’, the details in italics are quotes from growers.
Weather;
Hot weather
Increase irrigation if hot weather forecast/expected
If you are coming up for a week of forty degrees then you need to get these, I’d
be putting on more irrigation, instead of putting fifteen you might go twenty five
hours to give them a bigger resilience.
Frost prevention
Irrigate late September/early October for frost prevention.
If irrigating for frost prevention, flood irrigation is better – cannot get the amount
of water necessary out of drip.
With drip trying to do frost prevention is not really where with flood where you’re
wetting the whole service it does work and I used to do it too when I had flood
it’s probably one of the disadvantages of the drip
That frost prevention one we do that with the flood.
Management of vines trees relating to stress caused by under-watering;
Vines are more tolerant of stress than citrus. As soon as citrus stresses it drops
its fruit.
The trigger point for us is do not let them stress out. As soon as they start to
stress – there is a classic example where people do that, as soon as you stress
it you lose your fruit size, you lose your tonnes to the acre and that’s a key
thing. Grapes it can tolerate a little bit more stress but again comes back to
tonnes per acres if you stress it.
54
With drip I think you’ve got to be ahead of the water use, if you get behind it’s
very hard to catch up, it’s like the other one I showed you before, where the
irrigation we’re putting on there is not getting down to the thirty and the fifty.
Once the soil gets really dry it’s very, very hard to wet it up again.
You’re better off to keep it moist.
Yeh the main tools in the red and your whites I guess if your tendril is dropping
it’s stressing your vine – you don’t want to stress the whites ever.
Plant requirements/plant indicators;
Rules of thumb:
Four times when you need optimum moisture in the soil:
1
start of season – bud burst – Sept/Oct
2
End of flowering – berries set (balling) – Nov
3
Veraison – berries start to colour – Christ/New Year – not so much lots
of water needed at veraison but critical to monitor water at this time
4
After harvest – vine exhausted, depleted of nutrients – need to irrigate
and fertilise.
Yes generally if you drive around you look at the grass, it’s a good indicator if
there is grass under the row which is wilted a little bit or you know that’s there’s
no water left in the top levels. You look at the vines if they’re starting to turn a
little bit or the leaves are puckering a little bit you know that they are starting to
stress, especially if they’re 1.05.14 you don’t’ want that to happen at all.
Yeh the main tools in the red and your whites I guess if your tendril is dropping
it’s stressing your vine – you don’t want to stress the whites ever.
After they have been picked they have been knocked around, like running a
marathon and not having a drink after so you give them a big drink and hope
they suck it in and settle down.
Yeah some people have the theory that once you finish picking the grapes
that’s it you don’t have to water anymore where I have the theory that after
you’ve picked the grapes that’s when you should be piling the water on and
putting the fertilizer on to build up
55
Seasonal factors
I know as a general rule that as we get to the end of November all sub soil
moisture is depleted and the success of the vines growing will depend entirely
on the amount of water I am able to supply cause up til November there is a lot
of sub soil moisture from the winter and year in and year out I am noticing that
at the end of November it’s all gone and then it depends on what we are
applying with water because we have three things that is happening: one the
soil moisture is depleted, two the canopies have grown really big so they are
starting to use .65 water and also the berries are starting to grow, the crop is
starting to grow and if you can imagine a thousand berries all expanding a
millimetre a day they need water to fill them up so those 3 things are all
happening at the end of November….
No. The only rule that I have got, that I believe in is that I like to put my vines to
sleep with nice wet feet.
Big irrigation at the end of the season after you harvest, after you pick, give
them a big irrigation.
The big water on the drip at the end of the season so you put them to sleep with
a fully belly just in case it doesn’t rain.
After they have been picked they have been knocked around, like running a
marathon and not having a drink after so you give them a big drink and hope
they suck it in and settle down.
Yeah some people have the theory that once you finish picking the grapes
that’s it you don’t have to water anymore where I have the theory that after
you’ve picked the grapes that’s when you should be piling the water on and
putting the fertilizer on to build up
We always water after harvest and we usually give them a decent water after
harvest and then we might, if it stays warm and dry, we like to keep watering
them a bit until they go to sleep.
Yes as soon as the water comes on we turn the pumps on and walk away for
five days to fill your profile. Don’t worry about what the water is doing, just turn
your pump on.
56
We like to water early as soon as the water comes on … Late August early
September. Depending on winter rain. If it’s been wet during winter it’s not
such a problem but if it’s been dry we like to water early and that usually is a big
water. If we can we try to fill up the subsoil to get it wet because it’s dry and
then we might not water much. For frost prevention it is really only help if you
have flood making it damp but when you have drip it’s not… it’s mainly that the
vines have reserve water down there to kick off.
Emerging rule of thumb/change of practice
Water every night – smaller more frequent watering
Israel experience recommends nightly irrigation (& fertilise) rather than twice a week
Grower went to talk by Ron Seligman. Did this at home vineyard and on the vineyard
he was looking after for another grower’s family (nightly irrigate – not sure about
fertilise suspect not). On other vineyard it resulted in more consistent baume levels.
We initially would do a big weekend one because we had cheaper electricity
and a top up mid week but we don’t tend to do that now. We always water at
night so we don’t have any evaporation and we tend to give them, sometimes
only three hrs per shift just to top up – depending on the weather, if it’s hot we
would give them six. We don’t probably water as much as a lot of people do but
do it more often than less so they have always moisture there but not sending it
down deep anymore.
57